2004 Second Presidential Debate (St. Louis) – “President Bush, during the last four years, you have made thousands of decisions that have affected millions of lives. Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it.”

2008 Vice Presidential Debate (still St. Louis) – “Let’s talk conventional wisdom for a moment. The conventional wisdom, Governor Palin with you, is that your Achilles’ Heel is that you lack experience. Your conventional wisom against you is that your Achilles’ Heel is that you lack discipline, Senator Biden. What is it really for you, Governor Palin? What is it really for you, Senator Biden?”

When I watched the Vice Presidential debate last night, it was deja vu in St. Lou all over again. Leaving all the partisanship aside (Republicans think Palin hit a home run, Democrats think she should be sent home – shocking!), it is amazing to me that politicians standing for the highest offices in the land cannot answer questions about their own shortcomings.

In 2004, President Bush danced all around the question, ultimately claiming that he appointed people who were more “mistakes” but would not name them on television. Senator Kerry, for his part, at least talked about mistakes he thought President Bush had made, but he never offered any thoughts on mistakes he made.

In 2008, Governor Palin either a) didn’t know what “Achilles’ Heel” means, or b) didn’t hear the question, or c) wanted us to refer back to the comment about how she wouldn’t answer the questions that the moderator wanted her to answer. Her response really set a new standard for avoiding the question. She listed all the reasons that John McCain asked to her to be his running mate and concluded with the stunning appraisal, “[I]t’s a good team; it’s a good ticket.”

Senator Biden, for his part, gave a nod to the question, thanking the moderator for suggesting that he had only one Achilles’ heel and then granted that he thought his true “weakness” was his “passion” before running through (in a very affecting manner) all the ways that his passion was a great thing.

Biden, to use the now familiar debating coach trick, and tried (rather clumsily) to turn his weakness into a strength. Bush tried to act like only history could judge his mistakes, and he was going to offer no help. Palin either didn’t hear the question or thinks she has strengths.

With another town hall presidential debate coming, we may hear another “tell us about your weaknesses” or “tell us about your mistakes” question. It seems to me that our democracy is dancing on an incredibly fine line over the precipice if we have decided that we prefer rhetorical obfuscation, outright avoidance of responsibility and accountability, and self-serving denial to even a moment of honest self-assessment. There are many reasons that each succeeding presidential campaign makes me less and less optimistic about the possibility of maintaining a substantive democratic discussion in this country, but none of our campaign’s flaws seem as deeply destructive to our discourse as this.

Answer the questions. Admit the mistakes. If Americans really want to see that our leaders are “real” people, surely they can deal with leaders who can be honest not just about policies, but about themselves.